Intel Core 7 350 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 235 Comparison

The Intel Core 7 350 and Intel Core Ultra 5 235 occupy different corners of the mobile and desktop markets, respectively. The Core 7 350 is a 15-watt mobile processor with 6 cores, while the Core Ultra 5 235 is a 65-watt desktop processor with 14 cores. The benchmark data shows a clear split: the Ultra 5 235 dominates in multi-threaded and throughput-oriented workloads, while the Core 7 350 claims a single notable victory in one legacy single-core test. This analysis breaks down their recorded performance across 17 benchmark comparisons.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 wins 16 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. Its victories span every major workload category: Cinebench multi-core tests, all PassMark throughput tests (data compression, encryption, extended instructions, prime numbers, floating point math, integer math, multithread, physics, random string sorting), and the newer single-core tests. The largest margins come in multi-core and parallel workloads, where the Core Ultra 5 235 leads by 45.6% in Cinebench R23 multi-core and by 63.7% in PassMark floating point math. This pattern reflects the Core Ultra 5 235's 14 cores versus the Core 7 350's 6 cores, along with its higher 5.00 GHz boost clock and dual-channel memory bus.

The Intel Core 7 350 wins exactly one comparison: Cinebench R15 single-core, where it scores 292 against the Core Ultra 5 235's 210, a 39% advantage. This is an isolated result; in Cinebench R20 single-core and R23 single-core, the Core Ultra 5 235 leads by 13.4% and 1.9%, respectively. The Core 7 350 also trails in PassMark single-thread (4100 vs 4516, a 9.2% deficit). The single R15 win appears to be a workload-specific anomaly rather than a general single-core advantage.

For use-case selection, the data indicates the Core Ultra 5 235 is the stronger choice for content creation, scientific computing, data compression, encryption, and any task that scales with core count and memory bandwidth. The Core 7 350, with its 15-watt TDP and single-channel memory, fits scenarios prioritizing low power draw and compact mobile designs, though its benchmark results show it cannot match the Ultra 5 235 in raw throughput. The Core 7 350's 71st percentile versus the Core Ultra 5 235's 89th percentile among all CPUs reinforces this positioning.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 wins 16 of the 17 comparisons. The Intel Core 7 350 wins only one, the Cinebench R15 single-core test.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two processors?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra 5 235 scores 371 versus the Core 7 350's 107, a 71.2% lead. The Cinebench R23 multi-core gap is also substantial at 45.6%.

Q: How do the two processors compare in single-thread performance?

A: The Core Ultra 5 235 leads in PassMark single-thread (4516 vs 4100, 9.2% ahead) and in Cinebench R23 single-core (2085 vs 2046, 1.9% ahead). The Core 7 350 only wins the older Cinebench R15 single-core test.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Intel Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 has 14 cores and 14 threads. Neither processor supports simultaneous multithreading.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 has an average benchmark score of 46062, compared to 17779 for the Core 7 350. The Core Ultra 5 235's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 and Intel Core i9-13900HX, while the Core 7 350's nearest rivals include the Intel Core 5 221TE and AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No, neither processor supports ECC memory. Both list DDR5 memory support, with the Core 7 350 also supporting LPDDR5X.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite reveals a mixed picture. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core Ultra 5 235 scores 1488 against 1220, a 18% lead. The Core 7 350 counters in R15 single-core with 292 versus 210, a 39% advantage. Moving to Cinebench R20, the Core Ultra 5 235 leads multi-core by 13.4% (6202 vs 5373) and single-core by 13.4% (875 vs 758). In Cinebench R23, the multi-core gap widens dramatically: the Core Ultra 5 235 scores 14769 versus 8030, a 45.6% lead, while single-core is nearly tied at 2085 versus 2046, a 1.9% margin.

The PassMark suite shows consistent and large wins for the Core Ultra 5 235. Data compression: 390711 vs 143123, a 63.4% lead. Data encryption: 29293 vs 10933, a 62.7% lead. Extended instructions: 32752 vs 12045, a 63.2% lead. Find prime numbers: 371 vs 107, a 71.2% lead. Floating point math: 117951 vs 42809, a 63.7% lead. Integer math: 87948 vs 33734, a 61.6% lead. Multithread: 37816 vs 15170, a 59.9% lead. Physics: 2570 vs 1173, a 54.4% lead. Random string sorting: 48980 vs 17238, a 64.8% lead. Single-thread: 4516 vs 4100, a 9.2% lead.

The average benchmark data places the Core Ultra 5 235 at 46062, which is 159% higher than the Core 7 350's 17779. The Core Ultra 5 235 sits at the 89th percentile of all CPUs, with nearest rivals including the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 (delta 0.1%), Intel Core i9-13900HX (delta -0.1%), and AMD EPYC 4364P (delta 0.2%). The Core 7 350 sits at the 71st percentile, with nearest rivals including the Intel Core 5 221TE (delta -0.5%), AMD EPYC 9374F (delta 0.5%), and AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT (delta -0.6%).

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every fundamental specification. The Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads; the Core Ultra 5 235 has 14 cores and 14 threads. Base clocks are 1.50 GHz for the Core 7 350 and 3.40 GHz for the Core Ultra 5 235. Boost clocks are 4.80 GHz and 5.00 GHz, respectively. Thermal design power is 15 watts for the Core 7 350 versus 65 watts for the Core Ultra 5 235.

Sockets differ: the Core 7 350 uses Intel BGA 1516, a mobile socket, while the Core Ultra 5 235 uses Intel Socket 1851 for desktop. The Core 7 350 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory over a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 5 235 supports DDR5 over a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Cache configurations diverge: both have 192 KB L1 per core, but L2 is 2.5 MB per core for the Core 7 350 versus 3 MB per core for the Core Ultra 5 235. L3 cache is 6 MB shared versus 24 MB shared. PCIe support differs significantly: the Core 7 350 offers Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra 5 235 offers Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only).

Integrated graphics differ: the Core 7 350 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Core Ultra 5 235 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 24 EU. Release dates are also different: the Core Ultra 5 235 launched on 2025-01-06, and the Core 7 350 on 2026-04-15. The Core Ultra 5 235 has a launch MSRP of $257; the Core 7 350 has a launch MSRP of $469.

Architecture Differences

The Core 7 350 is built on the Wildcat Lake architecture (generation "Core 5 (Wildcat Lake)"), while the Core Ultra 5 235 uses the Arrow Lake architecture (generation "Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake)"). Both are fabricated on a 3 nm process, but the foundries differ: Intel produces the Core 7 350 in-house, while TSMC fabricates the Core Ultra 5 235. The Core Ultra 5 235 has a disclosed transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm²; no transistor or die size data is recorded for the Core 7 350.

The core count difference (6 vs 14) is the primary architectural driver of the multi-threaded benchmark gaps. The Core Ultra 5 235 also has a larger L3 cache (24 MB vs 6 MB) and higher per-core L2 (3 MB vs 2.5 MB), which supports its better performance in data-intensive PassMark tests. The memory subsystem differs architecturally as well: single-channel versus dual-channel, with the Core Ultra 5 235 nearly doubling memory bandwidth (102.4 GB/s vs 59.7 GB/s).

PCIe generation and lane count reflect their market segments: the mobile Core 7 350 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes, while the desktop Core Ultra 5 235 provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes. The integrated graphics also represent different generations: Xe3 with 2 Xe cores for the Core 7 350 versus Arc Xe-LPG with 24 EU for the Core Ultra 5 235. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and neither supports ECC memory. The Core 7 350's 15-watt TDP and BGA socket target thin-and-light mobile devices, while the Core Ultra 5 235's 65-watt TDP and Socket 1851 target desktop systems with more substantial cooling and power delivery.